the spectator is a very right wing british paper that's basically just a combination of opinion pieces from boomers saying we have to nuke iran and telling women to get back in the kitchen. it's like the upmarket snobbier version of the daily mail.
this basically sums up the entire paper in one image:
Does that mean I can call racists a bunch of dirty commies if they want social hierarchies? After all, they're calling me a capitalist pig for my bourgeoisie decadence of...checks notes...not hating people because they're different.
That cover does tell me literally everything I think I would need to know about such a paper. Except for the "In defence of Picasso" bit. Like...pretty sure they'd hate him for being a communist.
Also, I looked up Picasso on the wikipedia and Stalin's link is red and scary, does anyone know why that's happening? I've never seen it before.
It looks like youve added shinigami eyes to your browser because that's how it displays links that have been marked as transphobic (so Stalin's been marked as transphobic so his Wikipedia page is highlighted red)
Oh, I guess lucky me, I've never seen the red example, only the green one. Weird that Stalin's wikipedia page of all things is homophobic. I'm guessing it has a bullshit section on how Stalin killed a million billion trans people or something.
is this fake? that @ doesn't seem like a real news outlet.
EDIT - It's real, the statement is on the White House website. It's directly at the end.
the spectator is a very right wing british paper that's basically just a combination of opinion pieces from boomers saying we have to nuke iran and telling women to get back in the kitchen. it's like the upmarket snobbier version of the daily mail.
this basically sums up the entire paper in one image:
dang now i want a fancy pronouns vest
One on the left is just transition goals all around
Does that mean I can call racists a bunch of dirty commies if they want social hierarchies? After all, they're calling me a capitalist pig for my bourgeoisie decadence of...checks notes...not hating people because they're different.
That cover does tell me literally everything I think I would need to know about such a paper. Except for the "In defence of Picasso" bit. Like...pretty sure they'd hate him for being a communist.
Also, I looked up Picasso on the wikipedia and Stalin's link is red and scary, does anyone know why that's happening? I've never seen it before.
It looks like youve added shinigami eyes to your browser because that's how it displays links that have been marked as transphobic (so Stalin's been marked as transphobic so his Wikipedia page is highlighted red)
Oh, I guess lucky me, I've never seen the red example, only the green one. Weird that Stalin's wikipedia page of all things is homophobic. I'm guessing it has a bullshit section on how Stalin killed a million billion trans people or something.